Innes v Adamson
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 25 October 1889 |
| Date | 25 October 1889 |
| Docket Number | No. 3. |
| Court | Court of Session |
Lord Kinnear. C, Lord President, Lord Shand, Lord Adam.
Reparation—Slander—Police-officer—Privilege—Malice—Relevancy.—
Reparation—Wrongous dismissal—Chief constable—Police (Scotland) Act, 1857 (20 and 21 Vict. c. 72), sec. 6—Relevancy.—
A police-constable brought an action of damages for slander against a chief constable, his superior officer, stating that the defender had, in the presence of two police-officers, maliciously and without probable cause, slandered him by saying that he had given in a false report, that that report was a lie, and that instead of attending to his duties he had merely been putting off his time.
The Court dismissed the action as irrelevant, holding (1) that it appeared from the pursuer's statement that the defender was acting within his duty in admonishing his inferior officer in regard to the report, and that his statement was privileged, and (2) that the pursuer in averring malice had failed to state specifically facts and circumstances from which malice was to be inferred.
Observed that in certain cases of privilege a general averment of malice is sufficient.
A police-constable tendered his resignation to the chief constable of his district, but the latter refused to accept the resignation, and dismissed him from the force. He raised an action of damages againt the chief constable on the ground that the dismissal was malicious and without probable cause.
The Court dismissed the action as irrelevant, holding that the defender was acting within the powers conferred upon him by the 6th section of the Police (Scotland) Act, 1857,* as well as within his ordinary duty, when he dismissed the pursuer.
An action of damages for alleged slander was raised by William Innes, formerly police-constable at Downfield, near Dundee, against Robert Adamson, chief constable of Forfarshire.
The pursuer averred;—(Cond. 2) ‘On or about 28th August 1888, the pursuer was ordered to perform the duties of constable at Newtyle for the period from said 28th August till 4th September following, during the absence of the Newtyle constable—Constable Laird—on holidays, and he did perform the duties of constable at Newtyle during said period, and gave the defender a written report of the performance of his duties, which report was read by the defender in the County Police Office, Court House Buildings, Dundee, on or about Tuesday 11th September last, when the defender, without any previous investigation, said he did not believe it, and slandered the pursuer, by saying falsely and calumniously, and maliciously, and without probable cause, in the presence and hearing of James Taylor, Superintendent of Police, Dundee, and Murdoch M'Leod, Inspector of Police, Downfield, near Dundee, that the pursuer had given him a false report—that said report was a lie, meaning thereby that the pursuer wilfully and dishonestly had made a false report regarding the performance of the said duties, and at same time and place, and in presence of the said James Taylor and Murdoch M'Leod, he falsely and calumniously, and maliciously, and without probable cause, accused the pursuer of neglecting his duties as a police-constable, and said that he (the pursuer)
instead of attending to his duties had only been putting off his time. The defender had made no inquiries as to the pursuer's performance of his duties, had received no complaints anent the same, and had no cause whatever to make the above statements. In doing so, he acted wrongfully and maliciously, and without probable cause.’
In cond. 3 the pursuer averred that feeling aggrieved, he, on 15th September 1888, tendered his resignation in writing to the defender. (Cond. 4) ‘The defender, after receiving the pursuer's resignation, dated 15th September, wrote to the superintendent, James Taylor, Dundee, a letter dated 17th September, in these terms,—“Constable Innes is dismissed the force. You will see that he immediately delivers up all articles of clothing, &c. His dismissal will date from 15th current.” This he did without consulting the police committee, as he was bound to do, and without making any inquiry whatever. The above letter was written most unjustifiably, oppressively, and maliciously, and with the intention of injuring the pursuer, and rendering it impossible for him to join any other police force. Following on said letter, the pursuer was ordered to deliver up his uniform, &c., on the 18th September. This he did. The defender was in the County Police Office, Dundee, on the morning of the 18th, and when there, and in the presence of Superintendent Taylor, Inspector M'Leod, and others, said that he (meaning Innes) would not now be able to join any other force, or used words of the like import and effect. In writing the said letter, and making the above statement, the defender acted unwarrantably, illegally, oppressively, and maliciously. By the actings of the defender above set forth the pursuer has suffered in his feelings and reputation. The pursuer did not resign to evade discipline, as stated in answer. He had to remain a whole month in the service after tendering his resignation, and was subject to discipline during that period.’
The pursuer further averred (and the averment was admitted);—(Cond. 5) ‘The pursuer brought his case before the Police Committee of the county of Forfar, and they directed the defender, as chief constable, to accept of pursuer's resignation, and pay him his salary up till the date when his resignation would have taken effect, viz., 15th October 1888. The defender refused to do so, and it was only after the clerk of supply was written to on the pursuer's behalf that the defender, on 20th October 1888, granted an acknowledgment that the pursuer was discharged upon resignation, instead of being dismissed.’
The pursuer pleaded;—(1) The defender having maliciously and without probable cause made the said false and calumnious statements of and concerning the pursuer, and thereby slandered the pursuer, to his loss, injury, and damage, is liable in reparation as concluded for, with expenses. (2) The defender having wrongfully and maliciously, and without probable cause, dismissed the pursuer from the Forfarshire police force, to the loss, injury, and damage of the pursuer, is liable in reparation as concluded for, with expenses.
The defender pleaded, inter alia;—(1) The averments of the pursuer are irrelevant. (3) The defender's acts with reference to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Re Order 17, Rule 11 of the County Court Rules; Bannister v S.G.B. Plc and Others and other Cases
...Court, the district judge made an order, before the defendant had even delivered a defence, stating "Directions in the same form as Order 17, r.11 to apply (copy attached)." Automatic directions would not otherwise have applied to the case, since it contained a claim for recovery of land, a......
-
Aktas v Adepta
...[1996] 1 WLR 561 (CA), where Janov was not followed. Gardner concerned three personal injury claims. Each had been struck out under CCR Ord 17, r. 11(9), whereby an action would be automatically struck out where there had been no request for a hearing for 15 months from close of pleadings. ......
-
Securum Finance Ltd v Ashton and another
...In the county court a response to the corrosive effect of delay has been to introduce the automatic strike out (County Court Rules, Ord. 17, r. 11(9)). However this has proved to be crude remedy the effects of which have not been wholly beneficial. It has founded an industry of satellite li......
-
Kearsley v Klarfield
...litigation. In the last ten years this phenomenon has been observed in relation to the "automatic strike-out" cases under the old CCR O 17 R 11 (see Bannister v SGB plc [1998] 1 WLR 1123), the credit hire litigation (see Dimond v Lovell [2002] 1 AC 384) and the CFA litigation (see Callery......